IMPERIAL Pacific International LLC has asked the federal court to dismiss with prejudice the lawsuit filed by Kan Pacific Saipan against the casino investor.
Kan Pacific Saipan or KPS, in its breach of contract complaint filed in October 2021, named IPI and several unnamed individuals as defendants.
IPI, through attorney Joey San Nicolas on Monday, filed its answer to the complaint in the District Court for the NMI.
“Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim against IPI or create a genuine issue of fact upon which relief may be granted,” San Nicolas said.
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its alleged damages, he added.
Moreover, KPS’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations, San Nicolas said.
“Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by release, waiver, estoppel, impossibility, impracticability, ambiguity, immunity granted by the operation of law, and/or by the doctrine of laches,” he added.
He said IPI reserves the right to interpose such other defenses and/or objections as continuing investigation and discovery may disclose.
According to attorney Joseph Iacopino, who represents KPS, the case is about a breach of a written agreement signed by KPS and IPI on or about May 9. 2016.
Iacopino said prior to entering into the agreement, several disputes and potential causes of action developed between plaintiff and IPI which exposed each party to the potential for an adverse judgment, attorney’s fees, costs, expenditure of time and resources and other adverse consequences.
“Subsequent to substantial negotiations, the subject written agreement was entered into between KPS and IPI to incentivize and compensate KPS for the closure of KPS’s business operations prior to the termination of its lease agreement, and to resolve such disputes and potential causes of action, avert the potential of such an adverse judgment, avoid the need to incur attorney fees, costs, expenditure of valuable time and resources and other adverse consequences and for other good and valuable consideration,” Iakopino said.
KPS operated the former Mariana Resort & Spa which IPI wanted to acquire.
As a material part of the consideration for entering into the agreement, Iacopino said, IPI became contractually and legally bound and obligated to pay to KPS the sum of $5 million which was to be satisfied by making 25 annual payments to KPS in the amount of $200,000 on June 1 of each calendar year commencing on June 1,2017.
In reliance thereon, he said, KPS refrained from pursuing legal action against IPI and others and otherwise changed its position and circumstances.
IPI thereafter made the first three annual payments that were due in June 2017, June 2018 and June 2019.
“However, IPI failed and refused to tender any portion of the amount that became due and owing on June 1, 2020. KPS thereafter sent to IPI more than 10 days’ notice of such default, and IPI has nevertheless continued to refrain from tendering any portion of such payment or any other amount that has become clue and owing thereafter, including the annua! payment that became due and owing on June 1, 2021,” Iacopino said.
In the event of a breach of agreement, and/or if any legal action is taken to enforce any provision of the agreement, the prevailing party in any action to enforce any obligation pursuant to the agreement shall be entitled to a recovery of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, Iacopino said.
The agreement provides that interest at the rate of 10% per annum shall be added to any amount that is not timely paid by IPI to KPS, he added.
KPS is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to rule in favor of KPS and issue a judgment against the defendants.
The lawsuit also asked that award of damages be issued in favor of KPS and attorney’s fees and costs.
In July 2020, KPS filed a similar breach of contract complaint against IPI in Superior Court.
But Associate Judge Wesley Bogdan dismissed the case without prejudice after KPS voluntary requested to dismiss the case.
IPI, which was then represented by attorney Juan Lizama, asked the court to issue an order dismissing the case because Kan Pacific failed to join an indispensable party, the CNMI Department of Public Lands.
